=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 15:22:41 -0400 -=
> Taking this argument to extremes, Mutt can contain *NO CODE* and that
> argument still applies. The user is still free to implement whatever
> missing features he wants, using shell scripts to glue together
> self-written programs and other utilities. So if less code is always
> better, then let's do that. I'll send you a shell script called
> mutt which does nothing but launch commands specified on the
> command line, and you can implement whatever features you want on
> top of that using whatever means you like.
Doesn't this exist already? mh?
See http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttQuotes about "MH". :)
Anyway, sure, but you dropped the relevant paragraph from my
response:
what's mutt about, and who decides what's in/ out?
> Please use that to read all your mail for 10 days, and then tell me
> that having features you want coded into your mailer isn't better.
Definitely I'm happy with mutt as it is, but as much as you and
others would like to add _more_ to it, I'd like to _strip_ it off
some parts "not belonging there" (by my taste, like smtp or spam).
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
